Was the cheque given by the appellant to someone had been deposited by that person - denied u/s 8(1)(d) holding that it is third party information - information about anyone’s account is maintained by the bank in a fiduciary capacity - CIC: denial upheld
30 Sep, 2013RTI application
1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 14.5.2012 seeking information about two cash deposits one made by him on 21.11.2006 to a current account of some other person and the other made by him on 12.1.2007 to his own SB account. The CPIO, while denying the information on first point on 17.5.2012 under section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act, stated that no amount was deposited in the said SB account on 12.1.2007.
2. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 2.7.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA upheld the reply of CPIO on 6.8.2012. The appellant approached the Commission on 26.9.2012 in second appeal.
Hearing
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 14.5.2012 and stated that he had sought information on two points:
(i) whether a cheque of Rs.5000/given by him to another person on 21.11.2006 had been deposited by that person; and
(ii) whether an amount of Rs.1,95,000/deposited by him in his account on 12.1.2007 was actually credited to his account.
5. The respondent stated that the bank has given a response on 17.5.2012 on both the points. The respondent informed that in so far as the 1st point is concerned, this had to be denied under section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act as this clearly was third party information, and that the information about any person’s account is maintained by the bank in a fiduciary capacity and hence confidentiality has to be maintained.
6. The respondent further stated that in so far as the second point is concerned, the information was provided that no money has been deposited in the appellant’s account on 12.1.2007. When the appellant was asked during the hearing whether the amount was deposited by cheque or in cash, the appellant stated that the entire amount was deposited in cash. The respondent stated that the bank has no record of it and the statement of account has already been provided to the appellant and there is no indication of any such deposit.
7. The CPIO’s reply of 17.5.2012 is comprehensive and in accordance with the RTI Act 2005.
Decision
8. There is no need for any intervention at the level of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commission
Citation: Shri R.J. Singh v. State Bank of India in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001425/04631